Lenin defined fascism as a Bonapartist movement that emerges when capitalism in decline, and American capitalism certainly hasn’t always been in decline, and it’s government can’t really be called Bonapartist in any sense.
Exactly. American ruling ideology has, for the most part, been overtly conservative and elitist even under its “progressive” eras, as opposed to the right wing populism that gives rise to fascism. Only thing that separated it from the old monarchies was that it put “entrepreneurs” as the rightful masters of society instead of aristocrats and royals.
It’s not like much has changed either since the mid-20th century. Even under the populistic overtures thrown out by everyone from Trump to Obama, there’s always the underlying assumption that the leaders of capital are the vanguard of political change. It’s arguably more present now than FDR’s time since a public program that doesn’t include a “partnership” with a dominant private corporate element is unthinkable in this day and age (“Obamacare” is a prime example).
I’m pretty sure he was referring to Napoleon III and the relation his faction had to the Paris Commune, not Napoleon the first. Obviously the Paris commune is a very different situation than what we’re facing in America, though Lenin and Engels have both commented on America. To note, Paris was under siege by the Prussians at the time and capitalist power began to dissolve in the city, giving rise to workers councils. To get America to those conditions would require an unthinkably incredible embargo of goods flowing into the country.
and it’s government can’t really be called Bonapartist in any sense.
the structure of the government isn’t (for now) but there’s a decent chunk of people who want to elect a king once in a while and otherwise completely disengage from civic politics.
Lenin defined fascism as a Bonapartist movement that emerges when capitalism in decline, and American capitalism certainly hasn’t always been in decline, and it’s government can’t really be called Bonapartist in any sense.
Exactly. American ruling ideology has, for the most part, been overtly conservative and elitist even under its “progressive” eras, as opposed to the right wing populism that gives rise to fascism. Only thing that separated it from the old monarchies was that it put “entrepreneurs” as the rightful masters of society instead of aristocrats and royals.
It’s not like much has changed either since the mid-20th century. Even under the populistic overtures thrown out by everyone from Trump to Obama, there’s always the underlying assumption that the leaders of capital are the vanguard of political change. It’s arguably more present now than FDR’s time since a public program that doesn’t include a “partnership” with a dominant private corporate element is unthinkable in this day and age (“Obamacare” is a prime example).
I’m pretty sure he was referring to Napoleon III and the relation his faction had to the Paris Commune, not Napoleon the first. Obviously the Paris commune is a very different situation than what we’re facing in America, though Lenin and Engels have both commented on America. To note, Paris was under siege by the Prussians at the time and capitalist power began to dissolve in the city, giving rise to workers councils. To get America to those conditions would require an unthinkably incredible embargo of goods flowing into the country.
If we got to that point everyone on the planet would be vaporized before the day was out.
Yeah, if anything Lenin’s interpretation was mirrored most readily during the Spanish civil war.
the structure of the government isn’t (for now) but there’s a decent chunk of people who want to elect a king once in a while and otherwise completely disengage from civic politics.